Content count

Joined

Last visited

Community Reputation

See, but that's the thing. I'm not saying guys should volunteer or be held out for two months while other people take their spots. What I suggested is that NOBODY is going to be around for those two months. It's a break that is ordered by the company for everyone. There's no risk of them losing their spots during a company-scheduled annual off-season. That's like saying that Eli Manning is in danger of losing his job just because it's the off season. No he's not. There aren't games going on where his backup is proving himself while Eli is sitting out. There are no games being played, period. Because it's the off-season.
The Cena thing is a good point, which I believe I mentioned in the first post.

I'm well aware of this and I agree with you to an extent. The travel back then was certainly much worse, and they did generally wrestle longer matches. I just looked at Cawthon's site for the hell of it and found out that in 1992 alone Bret Hart wrestled some 230-250 matches. And that was only 1992; not exactly the real old days. It was insane and it is better now.
Yet, I'm not sure the health risks are any better these days. Look at how much wrestling has changed just over the past ten years. We might not see any 60 minute matches anymore, but we routinely see all sorts of chairshots, highspots, ladder dives, table spots, etc. With stuff like ladder matches, Hell in a Cell, hardcore matches, and the worst offender, TLC matches, guys today may take worse punishment than ever before. Upper midcarders in Flair's day may have wrestled eight 20 minute matches every week, and maybe the guys today wrestle three or four ten-fifteen minute matches. But think about the type of matches they do these days. It's constant action. Flying top rope headbutts and multiple german suplexes take place routinely in every match. There are no more jobber matches or squashes, or ten minute restholds. Just look at all the major neck surgeries over the last few years: Edge, Lita, Benoit, Austin, etc. That was no coincidence. These guys are getting abused.
I believe the newer style is to blame as much as anything and that must be toned down as well. But the idea that these guys today don't get hurt just as badly, if not worse than the guys in the past, just because they're not on the road for 300 days per year doesn't cut it.

The initial post is long enough as it is so I didn't include everything, but the general thinking is that under the new 10 month system the financial system would have to change as well. They have to go to a system that is more about downside guarantees rather than how frequently you wrestle. Right now they operate with a 12 month schedule. If they only operate with a 10 month schedule, everyone would be operating within that same schedule. It's not like other guys would be passing you up on the payscale if you're not wrestling as much because everyone would be wrestling less. Besides, the guys I talked about doing fewer house shows are the veterans/elite guys that do have huge downsides and are generally already taken care of financially.
It may take a complete overhaul on the financial structure of the WWE, but guys really should be paid a certain amount annually regardless of injury. If a baseball player spends two months on the DL, he still gets his whole annual salary. He doesn't have to worry about rushing back from a strained ligament after a week and risking throwing his arm out just so he continues to get paid. I know it's apples and oranges, and it's not a real sport, and there'll never be a union, and then you'll have people taking advantage of the system like in WCW, but once you're under WWE contract, there's got to be a happy medium where a guy doesn't have to wrestle 250 days a year just to feel like that's the only way he can make decent money. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, and I'm not saying Vince is going to be willing, but something has to be done to take better care of these guys.

One of the many topics of discussion to come out of the whole Benoit ordeal is the subject of the grueling schedule that wrestlers go through. Believe it or not, this issue crossed my mind before last week. In many ways, the wrestling business still subscribes to old-school philosophies. The WWE is outdated in much of their thinking. I think it's time to overhaul the touring schedule and drastically cut back on the number of dates each guy must wrestle. Remember, the WWE has already cut down significantly compared to the way they used to operate. Back in the 80's there were three house show circuits, frequent double shots. We've heard many guys say they were on the road 300 days per year, wrestled in 100 cities for 80 days in a row without a day off, etc. That stuff doesn't really happen anymore. But there's still a lot of room for improvement.
And just for the record, I don't think Benoit did what he did just because he was overworked. Like many, I think there were a ton of factors that contributed to it. But one thing the incident did was shed a little bit of light on how overworked most wrestlers are. My proposal to lighten the workload is as follows.
First off, I've always thought ECW was a joke of a brand anyway and contributes little or nothing to the company; frankly, I'm surprised such a poor concept has lasted as long as it has. So I'm just going to use Raw and Smackdown in my example. If they are really hell-bent on keeping ECW around, that could easily be implemented into the new system as well.
I think wrestling must have some sort of an off-season to let these guys recover. This has been said many times before but it's true. For the amount of punishment these guys take, it's ridiculous that there is never any downtime. I propose a two-month off season for both brands that occur at separate times. Say the Raw circuit's off-season will encompass June and July, and Smackdown's is during September and October. This is just an example, but that is what I'd do. This way, both rosters are in full swing from November-May, including the January-April Wrestlemania stretch that is usually the most important time of the wrestling year.
In addition to giving workers a much needed break, I honestly think that something like this would make it easier for the viewers to sustain interest in the product as well. Two hours per week, per show, week after week, year after year gets so monotonous. It takes a lot to keep up. I can only speak for myself, but that's part of what contributed to me not watching as frequently over the years, and I'll bet there are others who will agree. My scenario gives the shows breaks mostly during the summer months, when, let's be honest, not a whole lot of people watch television anyway.
As for how this would effect the PPV schedule, I think it would add interest to otherwise lackluster PPVs. Under my proposed schedule, Raw could have a major PPV at the end of May, which would be their season-finale of sorts, their last show for the next 8-10 weeks. They'd probably gain a lot of extra buys if everyone knew it was the culmination for everything and the show wouldn't return until the beginning of August. Similarly, Summerslam at the end of August would have a new dimension added to it, as it would simultaneously become the big return PPV for Raw as well as the big season-finale type PPV for Smackdown.
Surivor Series, Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania remain joint-PPVs, and are held while both tours are active. The annual draft could be held in early November, right after Smackdown returns from their break. That way the roster shake-up would happen just in time for the big run toward the Rumble and Wrestlemania, and everyone would be relatively fresh, with the Smackdown guys having just come off a break, and the Raw guys only having been back a couple months since the end of their break.
The actual TV shows during the break could be a fresh change of pace if done correctly. They could kind of be like the old studio shows but with more of a new vibe to them. For eight weeks there are tons of ways to fill time. They can show best-of matches, take time to profile certain guys that might otherwise not get enough air-time, have sit-down interviews, show taped promos, do new interviews "live via-satellite", show vignettes to hype new wrestlers, analyze the end of the "previous season", look forward to what to expect in the upcoming "season", do a news segment with what's been going on in the company, involve the Divas with the show somehow (maybe they might actually prove useful for once on a studio-type show), keep tabs on the current happenings on the other show, and maybe even have weekly PTI/Around the Horn type segments (you know you'd like to see Lawler, Maria, Finkel, and Arn Anderson debating ridiculous topics a la Around the Horn). There are plenty of ways to fill the time and they could actually turn out to be better than a lot of the shows they turn out now, even without live matches. And in the week or so leading up to the "season premiers" for the new seasons, you could even send a few guys out to do press junkets and make the media rounds to generate interest like other shows do.
Another thing I'd do is have Smackdown go live on Fridays (if not live, it could be taped every Friday a week in advance). I know they are hesitant to do the show live on Fridays. But this way, the Smackdown tour can be on the road Friday (TV) Saturday, Sunday (house shows and the occassional Sunday PPV) and the Raw tour can be on the road Saturday, Sunday (house shows and the occassional Sunday PPV) and Monday (TV). And if a Smackdown star has to appear on Raw or vice versa, you're just tacking one day onto either the beginning or end of their schedule. That's three days per week for each circuit. There are exceptions, like the international tours, but for that I propose this: each brand does one per year, and they alternate locations. For instance, in 2008 Raw goes to Europe, while Smackdown goes to Australia or Asia. In 2009, Smackdown goes to Europe and Raw goes to Asia. Raw's tour should be in April or May after Wrestlemania, as is tradition, and will be right before their well-deserved break. Smackdown's should come in November or December, right after their break.
The average guy will then have three shows per week to do. I suggest that the top guys that consistently appear on both shows and have the most demanding main event matches (Edge, Batista, Cena, Lashley, Taker, HHH, HBK, Booker, Mysterio, Benoit would have fit here, etc.) are given a reduced house show schedule. This is tricky, because they are the main draws, but if you rotate the schedule well enough, you can get by with giving each of them one week of house shows per month off (not all on the same week, of course). This will give them a rest so that once every four weeks their only responsibility is one TV show. That would mean once per month they go 10-11 days only having to do one TV show and nothing else. Of course, maybe this would also be a time better served to have them make the bulk of their personal appearances. Either way. The lower-tier guys should be entitled to some time off as well, but remember, the way the company is structured they're not the ones working 20 minute matches every night, having the toughest matches on the card, so they may not need such frequent breaks. The champion, and a guy like Cena that's the face of the company would have to be the exception to the rule. He probably wouldn't be able to take many (if any) house shows off, since he's the main draw. But that comes with the territory of being the main guy, kind of like the old days.
Under my proposal, guys like Edge, Benoit, Batista, etc. would do 4 TV's per month, 6 house shows per month, and I suppose 1 PPV per month for ten months per year. (with my new schedule I think 10 PPVs a month for the company would be a good total, but I guess that's a separate issue). There are the occasional extenuating circumstances like needing to appear on both TV shows or doing a longer house show run on an international tour, but that's it. Factor in one additional appearance on another TV show, and a personal appearance, and you've got about 12 dates you have to show up for per month, for 10 months. Basically, the MOST anyone would have to wrestle about 100 matches per year, which is still insane but a lot less than what has been expected in the past. The travel is still brutal, and 10 matches per month for 10 months in a row can still take a tremendous physical toll. But for the most part it cuts down on their time in the ring and is an improvement over what it's like now.
Now of course my proposal has problems and there are a lot of reasons why the WWE would be reluctant to go with something like it. First there's the issue of no Raw in the summertime. I'd be interested to see how house show business does in the summer compared to other times of the year. On one hand, that's when kids are out of school so maybe business increases. The other school of thought says everyone has better things to do in the summer anyway. Regardless, not having half of the total house show business around for four months out of the year would be a financial hit. As would the TV shows. They'd probably save money by doing the studio shows, but ultimately lose money without the attendance and live gates. And I don't know how the networks would feel about not having live shows (although every other show in the world goes into repeats so I can't imagine it would be that big of a deal). And forget about going down to 10 PPVs per year. That would be taking away tons of money.
Really, that's what it all comes down to: money. I know first and foremost it's a business and a lot of my suggestions simply aren't realistic with that goal in mind. But it's really a shame they can't do a better job of rotating their roster in and out so that they can provide everyone with a break fairly regularly. I'm not saying it would solve every problem. Guys would still get hurt and still have to do a ton of travelling. And the steroid/pain killer/drugs/alcohol epidemic would still be a separate issue that must be addressed. But I really feel that if they could find some way to lighten the workload, the travel, and the amount of abuse that these guys consistently put on their bodies, everyone involved would be a lot better off in the long run. There's got to be some way they can improve this aspect of the business.

Just a few quick thoughts:
- I echo the sentiments that Malenko's speech struck me as odd. I know he's the Iceman and all, but when Eddie died I could have sworn I remember him crying his eyes out. Yet tonight he just seemed kind of distanced and numb. He was nowhere near as emotional as I expected.
- The two people I'd have liked to have heard from the most that we didn't get a chance to are Bret and Jericho.
- I'm most curious about the details of the text messages. It will be very interesting to see how the timeline played out.
- Earlier in the thread when somebody said that Benoit was the last wrestler they'd ever expect this from, a few others said that was ridiculous to say. Um, no, it's not. It's true that a lot of wrestlers are scumbags, and that we don't know any of them personally, but if you woke up today and saw that a WWE wrestler murdered his wife and kid, would you honestly first think of Benoit? Would he even be in the top ten? I doubt it. I'm not about to rank wrestlers in order of "most likely to murder their family" but there are just some people that would not even be on my radar if I had to guess which wrestler did this. Benoit is one of them.
- One last thing. At some point in this thread I saw a few people lump this in with the Benoit, Eddie, Pillman, and Owen deaths. I have all the sympathy in the world for all of these awful situations, but can we please not lump Owen in with the others? Eddie and Pillman died as the result of bodily harm that they caused to themselves for the most part (although their car/motorcycle accidents played a role as well). And this Benoit mess is a whole other level of crazy. Each case is tragic. But Owen did not murder anyone and he did not abuse alcohol or drugs. His tragedy was of a completely different nature.

This was one of my first thoughts when they did this angle. Not that they could be sued, but how are they going to have Vince make public appearances for anything after this (or at least while the angle is going on)? I know kayfabe is dead but it would still be strange to do a death angle and then have him show up to speak at a stockholders meeting three weeks later. I don't think they thought this one all the way through.

Yeah, now that I think about it you're right. I always assumed it was California because it was obviously filmed there and all the outdoor settings looked like California. I found this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094582/faq which mentions some evidence that it's California (license plates, zip codes, etc.), but I agree that it's not really meant to be any specific place.
The quote about the Jets jacket always stuck with me as a kid and reinforced my notion that it was in California, even if it wasn't spelled out. Maybe the line I remember was something less descriptive like: "You've never even been to a Jets game."

I'm pretty sure it's in California. Kevin always wore a Jets jacket, and at some point somebody (probably Paul) took a cheap shot at him, about how he's never even been to the east coast, or something to that effect. I swear I thought they mentioned California at some point, but I know they definitely acknowledged that it was nowhere near the northeast.

Not sure why you're being so defensive. Hope you know I'm not trying to attack you personally or anything. Just debating a few points.
First off, let me say that as far as discussing the trade goes, it's an exercise in futility anyway. I doubt Kobe will get moved, but if he does, the following will hold true:
1. It will be to an Eastern Conference team.
2. It is very unlikely the Lakers will get anything approaching equal value back.
3. It will likely have to be a 3 (or more) team deal because no single team, especially in the East, can afford to give up enough to get Kobe and then still have enough left to be a contender once they get him.
That said, remember, this is the NBA. There are bad trades all the time. Very rarely are there good trades that help all parties. Teams that trade away superstars almost never get enough in return. Shaq, Iverson, and McGrady are examples of this just in the past few years.
There are a number of reasons my trade would never happen, but it's not like there are a ton of deals on the table that actually do make sense. Short of getting LeBron or Wade, which isn't happening, the Lakers are going to take a hit if they deal Kobe. While some of my suggestions may have been unrealisitc, so is your idea of Kobe, Nash, and Amare ever taking the floor together. Neither one is going to happen.
You do have some valid points, but there are others I disagree with.
First off, understand that I am actually a Suns fan. Nash was my favorite player in the league while he was on Dallas so since he went to Phoenix and blew up, I've been pulling for the Suns. There's no one in the league I want to see win a ring more than Nash. So don't assume I'm someone that's never seen them play and think they just heave up threes. I've actually defended their defense many times. Most people see the final score, see that they gave up 104 points, and assume they can't play D. What people don't realize is that if they scored 124 and gave up 102, they actually did quite well, because their style leads to quicker possessions and more of them, so naturally the final score will be higher. I get that. And I agree that Marion was robbed with the first-team defense business.
You are right that giving away Thomas without getting another big man back would not work. With Amare as the only guy over 6'9, they'd be at a disadvantage (although I believe Diaw and Marion are only an inch shorter than Thomas). The only reason I incorporated Thomas into my fantasy trade is because Chicago was giving up so many big men that I felt they needed one back, and it helped the salaries even out. But you're right, not having another big man would be a problem.
Still, I think you're overrating his contributions to the team a little. I'm not saying he's worthless, but the way that team is structured, they only have 6 players that are vital to their success, and he's not one of them. He's missed 45 games the last two years and they don't miss him the way they'd miss one of the big six. Also note that his minutes were down significantly this year. Last year they made it to the West finals without him, and they beat the aforementioned Kwame and Brand in doing so. As far as him not fitting on the team, all I mean is he's not exactly interchangable with the clear-cut top six. And as good of a defender as he may be, you're not going to see him get crunch time minutes because he's not a part of their best lineup.
You could say that about every team in the league that ever adds two new players to the rotation. That still doesn't explain chemistry issues. I did not trade the entire team. Bell and Barbosa are not the entire team. And Banks doesn't play enough to matter. Six guys on the team matter. Keeping four of them, including the best three, would not dramatically alter the chemistry as you're suggesting. As long as D'Antoni, Nash, Marion, and Amare are still there, the chemistry is fine. Cook is a non-factor. I included him for salary reasons. He'd be the ninth or tenth guy on that depth chart and wouldn't play under D'Antoni so he's irrelevant. I'm not a big Radmonovic fan either, but his one strength is shooting. Call me crazy, but I think it's a good thing to pair another shooter with Nash.
Just because Gordon can shoot off the dribble doesn't mean he can't catch and shoot. He can shoot off the dribble and he can create his own shot. And this is a bad attribute to have? That he's not limited to just being a standard catch and shoot guy is a bad thing? Also, he may not be as good as Barbosa in this area, but Gordon absolutely is capable of getting into the paint when he wants to.
But the trade also got rid of Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas. Substituting Kurt Thomas and Turiaf for Tyrus Thomas and Ben Wallace does not exactly put them over the top as some sort of defensive juggernaut. And PJ Brown is 65 years old. While it would be a good defensive frontcourt, they still would not have solved their problem of finding a low-post scoring threat. Not sure where you're getting 25 million from Kurt and Brown, but the expiring contracts are a fair point because they are valuable.
I still don't understand how you can complain that it ruins the chemistry and they're ripping everyone off in the same breath. I think chemistry is important too, but I think you're misrepresenting it here. Before this season, Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, and PJ Brown had never played with the Bulls. Those were three brand new frontcourt players. By your logic, at this time last year, adding them would have been damaging to the chemistry. And yet now, you don't want to break them up because they supposedly have great chemistry. Why is it that three new players last year didn't screw up the chemistry, but two new players this year will? That just doesn't make sense. Just because a team changes some of its parts doesn't automatically mean there will be chemistry problems, especially if the core remains in tact. If that were the case, no team would have chemistry because everybody changes teams so frequently anyway. They are pros. They will adjust.
As for Kobe negating Deng, that's interesting because this actually occured to me. He never blended well with Odom. And he didn't exactly play nice with Caron Butler, which makes me wonder if he's capable of playing alongside another big-time small forward.
Time will tell on this one, but I have a very hard time believing Kirk Hinrich will prove to be a better NBA player than Ben Gordon. Now if you want to argue expendable in the sense that Hinrich is a point guard, then that's one thing. If the idea is that a solid point guard is more valuable than a good shooting guard in a league full of swingmen, I can understand that angle. But all things being equal, I'll take Gordon any day.
You're attacking me for the misconception that Phoenix is poor defensively (which I don't even agree with) but you're making a big misconception yourself. That Gordon is just a one-dimensional player that's only good for shooting threes is way off base. Steve Kerr he is not. I will admit that he's struggled at times, especially his rookie year. At first he turned the ball over way too much and had virtually no assists. He's been inconsistent at times but he's constantly improving. Once he gets the consistancy down, he'll reach another level. He's already on his way. You say if his shot his off he doesn't offer anything else. First off, it's becoming less and less frequent that he can't find his shot. He had a stretch of something like 23 out of 25 games this season where he scored 20 or more. He can go off for 40 on any given night. And if he doesn't he can absolutely still be an asset. Let's not forget how clutch the guy is. He's Mr. 4th quarter. Maybe he's not the defensive player that Hinrich is, but he's hardly a bad defender. And he doesn't run an offense like Hinrich does because he's not a true point guard.
Gordon's major obstacle is that he's somewhat limited by the fact that he's a tweener. A two-guard in a point guard's body. He's never going to pull down 6 boards a game like a Ray Allen-type but that's okay. The thing about Hinrich is that I think we know exactly what he is already. He's a good player who probably won't get much better than he already is. That's not a knock on him. I like Hinrich. He's good. But Gordon has steadily improved, and hasn't even really found his role quite yet. I think we're only seeing Gordon scratch the surface of what he can become while Hinrich is pretty close to his ceiling. Just my opinion. Time will tell.

This is true. I was surprised to hear arguments against the Bulls doing that deal, but the Lakers I can understand. When I looked at it, I figured the Lakers were getting hosed the most. I don't actually think they'd ever make that trade, just because they're not getting a star player back.
Of course this is also the franchise that turned Shaq into Lamar Odom and Kwame Brown.

If this has been mentioned already, I apologize. Haven't seen it anywhere on here even though I know there are a lot of AD fans.
Anyway, Michael Cera of Arrested Development fame has a new online show. There are four episodes up so far, and they each run about 8-10 minutes long. Andy Richter has a small role in one of them. You can check it out at www.clarkandmichael.com
He plays himself, and it's all about him and his buddy trying to pitch their idea for a TV pilot. Cera pretty much acts like the George Michael character. There's awkward dialogue all over the place.
It's not the greatest show in the world, but I like the dialogue and there are some amusing parts. It's worth checking out. At the very least, the opening credits are hilarious.
Also, I don't think I saw this in the Knocked Up thread, but here's a video of a scene with Cera as the male lead opposite Katherine Heigl on the set of Knocked Up. Again acting awkwardly in a George Michael type fashion. Good stuff.

I only included the draft picks as a way to get the Lakers both of Phoenix's picks so they would have three total. You could just as easily change my scenario to have the Lakers keep their #19 pick without affecting the whole thing much.
And I agree, #19 to #24 isn't a huge gap, but you never know, it could make a difference. Marcus Williams had no business slipping all the way to #21 (I believe) last year. Sometimes good players slip into the 16-20 range, but I doubt they'll make it all the way to 24.
As for Barbosa for Gordon straight up, I can't agree with you there. I take Gordon every time. And I say that not because of the PPG numbers. I understand that Barbosa plays on a loaded team and that's why he doesn't score as much. In fact, I mentioned I think Barbosa would be good for 20 PPG on the Lakers.
Granted, they're different players. Barbosa is better at getting to the basket, yes. But I think Gordon's pretty underrated on here as far as other parts of his game go. He's not just a shooter. The assists will come, and he's really not bad defnsively. I don't know where that comes from.
To say you wouldn't give up Barbosa and Bell for Gordon is completely understandable. And again, we're not just talking about Barbosa vs. Gordon. I believe the partnership of Gordon and Nash together would be better than that of Barbosa and Nash. I just think Gordon and Nash would compliment each other perfectly.
As a whole, the deal I proposed would give the Suns more depth, which I think they need. I really do think Radmonovic would actually play well on that team, Duhon would be a solid back up PG instead of the awful Banks, and Gordon could contribute everything Barbosa does for them now. And in order to get that depth, you're giving up Raja Bell. I'm not saying it's a no-brainer- they are giving up a lot because Barbosa and Bell are very valuable. But keeping their big three, getting deeper, and adding two parts that fit (Radmonovic, Duhon), while providing a perfect compliment to Nash at SG is at least worth thinking about.

I admit that it has its flaws but it's the best I could come up with as far as salaries working out.
When you say the Suns lose too much defensively, 1) since when have they ever cared about defense and 2) I assume all you mean by that is that they're losing Bell. Kurt Thomas is good defensively, but he's never fit in with the team to being with. He was good in the Spurs series, but their title hopes are not going to hinge on Kurt Thomas' defense.
How does it destroy Phoenix's team chemistry in the least? The three most important players plus Diaw all remain, and they still play the same style. The whole point was that they're acquiring guys that will fit perfectly in their system. It would not set them back a year.
If anything, trading Marion, as has been rumored, would be the backbreaker. Obviously, yeah, your proposed core of Nash, Kobe, and Amare craps on anything. But there's no way the Lakers trade Kobe to nearby Phoenix. If he's going anywhere, they're shipping him to the east.
I don't think the Bulls come out way ahead in my proposed deal like you seem to think because it really leaves them with nothing up front. It gives them a great 1-2-3 and not much else, almost like a superior version of the Nets (Hinrich/Kobe/Deng - Kidd/Carter/Jefferson). And if they're "raping everyone" like you think, why do you also think it would upset their chemsitry so much? Seems to be a contradictory statement. The main guys they're losing have only been there for one season anyway (Wallace, Thomas), and then they're upgrading with Kobe over Gordon. They keep their emerging star forward and their point guard. How exactly does that ruin the chemistry?
Also, I don't know if it was you specifically, but I remember reading something on here where the consensus among multiple people seemed to be that Hinrich should be untouchable and Gordon is way more expendable. That's a load of crap. Hinrich is a good player and all, but Gordon is a star in the making. As in, multiple-year All Star, option #2 on a legit contender someday. Again, I don't know if it was you, but I think a lot of people here severely undervalue Ben Gordon. Especially with the way he'd fit with Nash, that would be a tremendous pick up for Phoenix. Whether it's enough to give up Barbosa and Bell is certainly debatable, but it's not like they're getting some scrub back.
Banks is terrible; I don't think D'Antoni should play him. But he might not have a choice. He really needs to do a better job of keeping Nash fresh for the playoffs.
I hadn't heard the Grant Hill rumor. That's an interesting one. Not sure how I feel about that.

Here's what I came up with. It's not perfect; these fantasy trade proposals never are, but I tried to be as realistic as possible. This is a three team deal with the Lakers, Bulls, and Suns. The contracts work out pretty well. All three are over the cap already, and the discrepency between what each team gives up and gets back is no more than 2-3 million dollars.
First off, I don't think the Lakers would deal Kobe within their conference. So he goes to Chicago.
The Bulls get: Kobe Bryant, Ronny Turiaf, Kurt Thomas, Marcus Banks
The Bulls give up: Ben Gordon, Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, Chris Duhon, #9 pick
Justification: You're going to have to give up a lot to get Kobe, so you lose two of your young guns in Gordon (who plays the same position as Kobe anyway) and Ty Thomas and your first round pick. Ben Wallace is by far their biggest contract. In order for the money to work out, they'd have to get rid of him to afford Kobe. And a lot of people feel the Wallace signing was a bad deal anyway, so this helps them get out of that. This allows them to add Kobe without sacrificing their core. They keep two of their big three, Hinrich and Deng. They are going to be hurting for big men by giving up both Wallace and Thomas, but between Kurt Thomas, PJ Brown, and Turiaf, they should be able to patch together something. They sacrifice depth at big man, but they get Kobe, which should make them the instant favorite in the Eastern Conference. (LeBron doesn't exactly have anyone the caliber of Hinrich and Deng to play with.)
Chicago's new roster: Kobe, Deng, Hinrich, Nocioni, K. Thomas, PJ Brown, Sefolosha, Turiaf, Banks, Sweetney, A. Griffin, Khryapa, etc.
The Suns get: Ben Gordon, Vladimir Radmonovic, Chris Duhon, Brian Cook, #19 pick
The Suns give up: Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell, Kurt Thomas, Marcus Banks, #24 pick, #29 pick
Justification: Phoenix improves their depth, which has been a problem. D'Antoni uses a short rotation, but it's imperative that they get a back up point guard for Nash, so he can rest more during the regular season and be fresh for a deep run in the playoffs. Duhon provides that. They also get rid of Marcus Banks' awful contract. Phoenix gets to keep their core, as the big three stay put. They give up Barbosa and Bell, two of their top six, but get back Ben Gordon, who can also run the back-up point, and I think would be a perfect fit to play in the backcourt with Nash. Gordon can definitely fill any scoring void left by Barbosa and Bell. Gordon is perfect in the run and gun (UConn loved to push the ball and he thrived there) and this is a situation where he doesn't have to be the top scorer. Gordon would thrive in Phoenix. Bell's defense will be missed, but this allows Boris Diaw to move back into a starting role. Radmonovic is a guy that's useless in LA but would fit well in Phoenix's offense. Gordon, Radmonovic, and James Jones are three shooters to surround with Nash. With the addition of Radmonovic and Duhon to the bench to go along with Jones, suddenly the Suns are eight deep instead of seven. Also, they give up two draft picks to move up a little and get a player that might have a chance to help them this year at #19. Barbosa and Bell is a lot to give up, but they need some more depth, and when Ben Gordon is the fourth best player on your team, you're in good shape.
Phoenix's new roster: Nash, Amare, Marion, Gordon, Diaw, Duhon, Radmonovic, J. Jones, Cook, #19 pick, Piatkowski
That brings us to the Lakers. What would they get back to justify giving up Kobe?
The Lakers get: Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell, Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, #9 pick, #24 pick, #29 pick
The Lakers give up: Kobe Bryant, Brian Cook, Ronny Turiaf, Vladimir Radmonovic, #19 pick
Justification: They're not going to get another star of equal value for Kobe, so they need to get a handful of good players. Barbosa and Tyrus Thomas are two solid young players with high ceilings, and neither make much money right now. This gives them a young core of Barbosa, Thomas, Bynum, Farmar, Kwame and Walton to build around, with veterans like Odom, Bell, and Ben Wallace. Wallace is there simply because they need to replace Kobe's contract. Nobody has the star power of Kobe, but Wallace is at least a charismatic guy that fans seem to like, and has the reputation of being a "winner," even if he's starting to get washed up. Wallace is also a decent trading chip to have for a future deal, as a contender would probably give up expiring contracts to put them over the top. So that's how LA can free up money in the future, which would be impossible to do with Kobe around. Barbosa and Odom would have to take on the scoring load, but that shouldn't be a problem; both are capable of being 20 PPG guys. The Lakers also get rid of Radmonovic's bad contract, and Turiaf and Cook, who never really fit on that team. And they get three first-rounders, including the #9, in a deep draft. They may not be getting a huge star back, but it shakes up their roster and gives them a ton of young players to develop. And with a top four of Odom, Barbosa, Bell, and Wallace, they'd probably remain nearly as competitive as they are now in the meantime. Considering Radmonovic, Cook, and Turiaf aren't huge factors to begin with, you're basically getting four starters (including two potential stars) and three first round picks in exchange for Kobe. Their new roster is pretty deep:
LA's new roster: B. Wallace, T. Thomas, Odom, Bell, Barbosa, Bynum, Kwame, Walton, Farmar, #9 pick, Smush, Vujacic, Evans, #24 pick, #29 pick

There are a lot of things I dislike about the All-Star game, but scenarios like Fielder over Pujols is not one of them. I don't understand what the big deal is. The guys that have the best first halves should be there. Place in history has nothing to do with it. Of course Pujols is better than Fielder. He's had a way better career thus far. But Prince is having an incredible year in 2007. If Fielder wins the fan vote, it won't be some travesty.
The last few years of his career, Cal Ripken won the fan vote at third base, even though he was past his prime. There's an example of when the fans gave the nod to the better historical player just because of his name value, which pretty much blocked everybody else from having a chance to start, no matter how good of a year they were having. Why should it be that way?
Why punish someone like Prince Fielder for having a great year? The All-Star game isn't about having the best players of all-time, or the best players of this era, or even the best players from last season. It's about having the best players at this moment. And at this moment, a guy like Prince Fielder is one of the best players.